_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and indicated that it appears that the applicant is trying to convince the Board that since he did not receive his copy of the PRF until one week before the CY95B board convened, he was not afforded the opportunity to write a personal letter to the CY95B board president. While the applicant believes he did not receive his PRF within...
She states that her rater based his evaluation of her duty performance on an isolated part of the rating period; and the contested report is based on the last 120 days of the 20 month reporting period. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 December 1998 for review and response within 30...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03141 INDEX CODE: 107, 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) (1 Jun 98) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board with inclusion of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), for the period 2 Feb 89 to 26 Aug 92, in his officer...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03144 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The close out date of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 1OLC), be changed from 15 June 1998 to 15 December 1997 [and, if approved, he be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Retired Pay, AFRPO/FMFQ-P, reviewed this application and recommended favorable action on applicant’s request for compensation for four active duty mandays. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant disagreed with the recommendation to deny his request for a uniform...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
They recommend the applicant’s request be denied. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 December 1998 for review and response within 30 days. Applicant's Officer Selection Record.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03153 INDEX CODE: 126 COUNSEL: JULIE K. HASDORFF HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An Article 15, dated 22 Aug 96, an Article 15, dated 6 Sep 96, and, a Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 4 Nov 96, be set aside. The defense counsel claims that the legal office recommended to the commander...
On 27 October 1997, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied an application submitted by the applicant requesting that the reason for discharge be changed. After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the narrative reason for discharge or the RE Code assigned at the time of applicant’s separation were in error. Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
He was credited with 31 paid AD points and 29 paid IDT points during the retirementhetention year 27 February 1997 through 26 February 1998, resulting in 75 total points, and, that the period 27 February 1997 through 26 February 1998 is a year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement. c. The applicant’s commander withdrew the discharge action on 3 May 1998, based on the Air Force Reserve Command’s recommendation advising that the applicant had not been afforded due process to progress...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03163 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: THOMAS E. STAUFFER HEARING DESIRED: NO It appears that the applicant is requesting that his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the authority for his placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and that he be issued a retirement certificate. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. Thus, the Board would have to reach the conclusion that the Air Force settled the Baker case because the Charge was flawed and consequently, applicant’s selection for early retirement constituted an error or injustice. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action with regards to the applicant’s request that his general discharge be...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
Therefore, in an effort to offset an injustice to the applicant, we recommend her records be corrected to the extent indicated below and that she be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99 selection board _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed the application and states although the recommendation package was not submitted on the day the DECOR-6 was requested, and not in official channels until June 1998, the decoration was awarded well within the required three-year limit. Therefore, they have no recommendations regarding a Supplemental Selection Board. Current Air Force...
This meant that those members taking the advance pay did not have to repay one month’s pay. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF DFAS EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and asserts his situation is no different than others who have received one month’s basic pay due to losses suffered from Hurricane Andrew. We are aware that many members assigned to Homestead Air Force Base during the Hurricane Andrew devastation received...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
AFBCMR 98-03187 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36- 2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff signed by...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
In her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations (Exhibit F), applicant submitted an amended application and requested that the date of the commander’s indorsement on the DECOR-6 (Recommendation for Decoration Printout) (RDP) be changed from 18 May 1998 to 23 October 1997 and that the MSM be considered in the promotion process for cycle 98E8 to Senior Master Sergeant. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, stated that based on the applicant’s selection folder, the duty titles and effective dates in question were in error on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel selection board. DPPPA noted the duty history corrections made to the applicant’s records by HQ AFPC/DPAPS1. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03206 INDEX CODE: 131.09 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that, prior to his relief from active duty on 8 November 1945, he was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant. He was returned to military control on 1 May 1945, having been in POW status...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03207 INDEX CODE: 121.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Ten days of leave lost at FY98 year-end balancing be restored to his current leave account. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-03207 INDEX CODE: 121.03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the application be denied. First, prior to his entry into AFIT in 1995, the applicant states, “I was informed that I would return for a tour of no more than 3 years to Air Command and Staff College and that my actual ADSC would be determined upon completion of my degree.” They believe the applicant is referring to the standard tour length associated with his follow-on...
Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in part, that first, we can look at the events that occurred at Vance AFB, OK. HQ AFPC has stated that he must have signed a training RIP and possible a Form 63 in order to have received his assignment to Luke AFB. This was the first time he was given a Form 63 to sign and informed that he was receiving a five- year ADSC for previous training he had accomplished....
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-03234 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: current' leave account. Air Force policy authorizes PTDY for house hunting...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03246 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded for entry into the Air Force Reserves. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
She also states that she believes the report to be unjust because of the personality conflicts that existed between her, her rater, and her rater’s rater that exploded after she approached the squadron commander about unprofessional practices she observed going on in her workcenter. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is convinced that the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03252 INDEX CODE: 134.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes Applicant requests her Personnel Information File (PIF) be expunged. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
On 10 Mar 93, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of and change of reason for his discharge. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...
On 17 November 1982, the applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Voluntary Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03263 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: DAVID E. WHEELER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His back pay and allowances in the amount of $9,326.65 be restored. It is JA’s opinion that the Board has sweeping authority to correct errors by granting waivers to policy; however, the Board is bound by statute -...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant's counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03265 INDEX CODE: 131 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Major Selection Board which convened on 6 Apr 98. The senior rater is provided a separate notice to prepare the PRF. A complete copy of their evaluation is...